Malaysian
Trades Unions Congress
Sarawak
Division
15 MAY
2008
POSITION PAPER ON
Decision by Previous Minister of to the Minister of Human Resources to
allow grant request by Sarawak Timber Association (STA)to exempt all
workers engaged in Forestry Undertakings in non urban areas from
certain provisions of the Amended Sarawak Labour Ordinance
1.
MTUC has been made aware that the Ministry of HR has worked hand
in hand with the STA to exempt employees timber industry in non-urban
areas from certain provisions of the SLO. The relevant sections were
·
S11 -
Guaranteed Week
·
S104 –
Holidays
·
S 105 -
Hours of Work
·
S105A –
Shift Work
·
S105B –
Rest Day
·
S105C –
Work on Rest Day
·
S105D -
Annual leave
2.
In Sarawak almost all timber workers are in non urban areas so
the Minister’s order means that almost all workers in the industry will
be denied protection accorded to them my Parliament.
CONTRACT OF SERVICE/CONTRACT FOR SERVICE/EPF
3.
It must
be borne in mind that the SLO only covers workers who are employed under
a contract OF service. It has been a prevalent practice for the timber
industry to treat workers in the upstream and logging operations as
contractors ie. employed under a contract FOR service, thus avoiding EPF
contributions.
EPF Figures would strongly suggest that the timber industry did not
contribute EPF for the vast majority of timber workers.
4.
However
for purpose of SOCSO they register these workers as employees because
SOCSO is very cheap and the employers do not have to buy insurance once
they contribute to SOCSO. When the workers dies of employment injuries,
their families cannot claim SOCSO as they are not deemed to be insured
person because they are contractors. See Batang Balleh and numerous
other Industrual Coirt and SOCSi Appellate Board cases
5.
It is indeed strange that STA now wants to exempt these workers
from the SLO when they never threat them as employees under a
contract OF service. MTUC is more than happy if STA now insist on all
timber employers contribute to EPF for all workers in the timber
industry.
STA’S
RATIONAL
6.
STA’s rational for the exemption are:
·
That
certain entrench policies/ practices will be offended by the amended
provisions
·
It would
be impractical for both employees and employers to implement the said
provisions
·
The
implementation of these provisions will have negative impact on
employer/employee relationships
7.
The
Chairman of STA has now stated ( Borneo Post 8 May 2007) that the
request for exemptions were not aim at denying workers their rights but
more to allow the industry to come out with a comprehensive remuneration
package that is more suited to the industry.
8.
This is indeed amusing as there is nothing in the SO to prevent
employers to provide a better remuneration to their employees. The SLO
provide for statutory minimum benefits. Certainly no employers need to
seek exemption to provide better benefits than the provisions of the SLO.
9.
First and foremost let MTUC states that the STA’s arguments that
the above sections were not practical to be implemented is nothing more
than a cloak to hide the real agenda- i.e. to cut cost of productions by
denying their workers basic rights guaranteed by the amended SLO. By
seeking to exempt all workers including those in down stream and trading
of timber products only goes to show their real agenda.
10.
Certainly we fail to see how it can be impractical to implement
all the said sections in a plywood factory in an industrial estate in
Demak Laut, Kemena, Lanang or Baram.
11.
Their argument that there are certain entrenched practices and
policies only goes to show that they are unwilling to change these
entrenched practices that has served the interests of employers, not
workers.
12.
S11 - Guaranteed Week
·
Guaranteed week is a provision to prevent daily workers to be exploited
and to enable them to obtain a decent living. It is to prevent
employer who engaged daily paid workers to work on any day and time as
they pleased. By exempting timber workers from S 11, it would mean that
daily paid workers will be left without work (AND WITHOUT PAY)
for days and weeks due to bad weather whilst stuck in the timber camps
and with no practical means to go back to their longhouses. How can they
survive?
·
Business
risk due to bad weather surely must be borne by millionaires and listed
companies, not poor daily paid workers who earn as little as 20 dollars
a day.
13.
S104 – Public Holidays
·
For STA
to argue that it is inconvenient for workers in timber camps to take
public holidays and that they usually take their off day or leave during
pay day, is ill informed.
·
There is
nothing in the current SLO to prevent employers to substitute public
holidays (including religious holidays) with another day in lieu. The
only Public holidays that cannot be substituted are Labour Day, Merdeka,
and birthdays of Agung & TYT. - For good reasons.
·
If timber
employers still require workers to work on these 4 Public Holidays, then
simply pay them overtime/Public holiday rates. – This is another example
of STA wanting to continue to exploit workers.
14.
S 105- Hours of Work
·
This
section give workers mandatory rest after 4 hours of work- What employer
want to challenge such basic human rights?
·
STA
reasons- in timber camps workers work from dawn until sunset to maximize
production only goes to shows that workers are treated like slaves to
maximize profits. No wonder workplace accidents and fatalities are
the highest in the timber industry.
15.
S105A – Shift Work
·
MTUC
again fail to see the ration to exempt for this section that regulates
shift work and actually enable employers to manage their employees’
working hours in an orderly manner and to meet exigencies of services
where production needs to be continuing.
16.
S105B – Rest Day
·
After
working from sunrise to sunset, STA expect timber workers to work
everyday without a rest day as long as weather permits clearly shows how
such the entrench practices that borders on slavery has been
going on in the timber camp for decades.
17.
S105C – Work on Rest Day
·
This
clearly showed that STA is only interested in not paying workers for
work done on rest day. It is not an impractical to implement issue. It
is a refusal to pay issue.
18.
S105D - Annual leave,
·
If STA’s
argument that workers take leave /off day during pay day, what is the
problem with annual leave? It is still the prerogative of employers to
determine and approve annual leave, They can schedule it, they can
roster it, so long they pay annual leave. Again a question of money and
denying annual leave that has been mandated by Parliament.
19.
In conclusion all STA wants is to continue to deny all workers in
the timber industry fundamental rights to:
·
Public
holidays,
·
Half an
hour rest after 4 hours of work,
·
A rest
day after working continuous for 6 days,
·
Overtime
payment for working in excess of normal hours of work
·
Even
annual leave.
20.
Their rational that they need workers to work non stop from
sunlight till sundown without break and to work everyday for months is
the main reason why the workplace accidents and fatality rate of the
timber industry is the highest. Workers are literally paying with their
life and blood. Now they even want to deny payments like annual leave
and overtime.
21.
For daily paid workers they even want absolute right to determine
the number of days work. This means that they can ask a daily paid
worker to come only one day a week or if the weather is good. So in a
wet season, the worker cannot even earn any wages at all. Business risk
must rest with employers, not poor workers.
22.
This is totally irresponsible from an industry that has made
billions of ringgit and has spawned some of the country’s richest
billionaires. It is indicative of an industry that not only exploits
the state’s natural resources, but also its employees, who are mainly
from kampongs and longhouses.
23.
We failed to understand why timber employers, billionaires and
millionaires should be exempted from these provisions, when other
employers in other industries are willingly and gracefully granting to
their employees.
·
What is
the difference of a worker in a plywood factory in Demak Laut Industrial
Estate compared to a metal factory?
·
What is
the difference between workers in a furniture shop compared to a worker
in a Computer shop?
·
And what
is the difference between the timber industry in Sarawak compared to
Sabah and West Malaysia, where employers there never seek exemption??
24.
Please
take note that these basic and fundamental provisions are legislated by
parliament with the aim to provide protection to workers. The amendment
was long overdue for 45 years and only just implemented recently.
Any
Minister to even consider to such request can only mean that he is only
looking after the interest of employers in an industry that has made
billionaires while workers continue to pay with the blood and their
lives.[back to top]
|